From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #36 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Wednesday, February 16 2000 Volume 02 : Number 036 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: stillpt-digest V2 #35 ["Jennifer Stevenson" ] Re: b/comments2/14 [Berni Phillips ] b/goodbyeiowa ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/goodbyeiowa [allenw ] Re: b/goodbyeiowa ["Susan J. Kroupa" ] Re: b/goodbyeiowa [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/goodbyeiowa ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:51:37 -0600 From: "Jennifer Stevenson" Subject: Re: stillpt-digest V2 #35 Don, you write, > By the way: where have I previously run into the phrase "Triumphal > Chariot of Antimony"? It's an alchemical work; does John Crowley > mention it? Don, I don't recognize it off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure John doesn't mention it. He seems to try to confine the number of pointy-headed references to a minimum, a choice which I applaud; he's writing entertainment here, not education, after all. DAEMONOMANIA is focused on the Hypnoerotomachia of whatever-the-guy's-name-is and he may refer to it in the text a lot (I haven't read any MSS or galleys) but I'll bet he doesn't mention a huge number of other texts. > >Jennifer: Two quick things (longer ideas later): I don't propose to > >play gatekeeper for this list. If you vouch for your friend that's > >good enough for me. I believe the method is to send e-mail to > >stillpt@smoe.org with "subscribe stillpt" or "subscribe stillpt- > >digest" in the body of the e-mail. > > Actually, you send those commands to majordomo@smoe.org. If you try to > send them to the list proper it'll just end up bouncing to me. Thanks Meredith, I'll check with my friend and make sure he sent to the proper address. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:02:02 -0800 From: Berni Phillips Subject: Re: b/comments2/14 Donald wrote: > Did anyone else notice (took me three viewings) what it >was that Willow surreptitiously put on her bureau when she >arrived just after Buffy "the morning after"? The crystal >Tara tried to give her earlier. Yes, I had noticed that. That's one of the reasons I suspect they may be leading to a Willow/Tara liaison. I think there's more going on between them than wicca. At the Bronze, too, when Willow is put out that Buffy brought Riley and the boys, Willow says she could have brought someone, too. Buffy immediately brightens, thinking Willow had a possible date. I don't recall what Willow says, but I thought she could have said something like, "oh, just a friend." She is too reluctant to discuss Tara. (I was wondering, too, why Buffy didn't try to fix Will up with one of Riley's friends.) Berni ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 23:20:39 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/goodbyeiowa [THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] ...which, by the way, is a publishing production joke; they actually print that in proofs on blank pages, just to make sure that they haven't dropped a page (something I once did!) I'm doing this not only for Meredith, hi Meredith, but for those West Coasters who may well be online, but as of now are =just= turning on to see the episode. All you who had a bad feeling about the vitamins, pat yourselves on the back. I patted myself on the back, the scene before it became obvious, for noticing Something Odd about Riley scratching his hand (though it may well have been because they used the same trope to indicate Something Odd with Buffy in "Earshot"). But the second time through (yes, I've already watched it twice...) Riley is already scratching his hand, a little, in the first scene he shows up at Giles' place. Insidious s.o.b.s, those writers. (Is it obvious already I really enjoyed this episode?) Kudos to Marc Blucas, whom I've doubted in the past; they handed him a whopping lot to do in this episode, and he brought it all off splendidly. The Buffy/Riley scenes were all good (of =course= he'd doubt her if he found her in the company of demons! what a lovely stroke!), especially the one where he thinks she's glad Walsh is dead. And nice tension between Riley and his second-in-command (and the latter with Buffy! it had been obvious for several episodes he didn't like her). I thought for a minute that the wizened corpse in the tomb (the Demon Prince?) was going to rise. Just to make things more complicated. Interesting subplot with Spike and the demons. Where's =that= going? And =what= is up with Tara sabotaging the spell??? A good giggle with the sushi pajamas riff. And also the dumb-blonde attack. (Why =is= the episode called "Goodby Iowa," anyway? They =aren't= going to kill of Riley, too, are they??) I have a prediction. Riley has no, or almost no, scenes in the next two episodes (or longer). Nasty wound, he's not going anywhere till he recovers a bit, and my guess is Buffy's idea of going in after him is a clever ruse on the writers' part... ...since they have other fish to fry. Namely Faith. I can hardly express how hard it's going to be to wait until next week. What a shot of adrenaline Faith'll give the show. (As if things aren't hopping now!) I was talking to Deirdre (my daughter) over the weekend, and we ran through the Faith possibilities again. My =speculation= was that Faith was going to show up again in Buffy's dream (which probably would have meant I was wrong about dream-Faith being a projection-- or maybe "spirit guide" is the word I'm looking for--of Buffy's, and not actually a communication from Faith herself; just as dream- Riley in "Hush" had nothing to do with real-Riley.) But I was wrong; Faith wakes up (which was the other most obvious possibility; also means I'm more likely right about dream-Faith), and is gunning for Buffy (which is one likely possibility given that occurrence, the other being Faith feeling lost and not knowing what to do with everything taken away--kind of like Riley now, kind of like Buffy in "Becoming" II. But that's not how Faith is wired, I should have realized). Oh, what fun. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:55:26 -0600 (EST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/goodbyeiowa On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > [THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All you who had a bad feeling about the vitamins, pat yourselves on > the back. But are they just super-steroids, or "Demon Soldier Serum"? And what is the Evil Plan Prof. Walsh had in mind for her two boys? And does Forrest (was that him in the white coat?) know about it? For an... interesting... look at Riley, and his relationship with Forrest, I highly reccommend the "Riley Finn: Male Lesbian" page (http://spacetart.tripod.com/sapphicslayer/riley.html), and the "Read About Riley" link therein. > > I thought for a minute that the wizened corpse in the tomb (the > Demon Prince?) was going to rise. Just to make things more > complicated. Yeah, whatever happened to that Demon Prince? I doubt the Initiative handled it. > > And =what= is up with Tara sabotaging the spell??? Could be that Tara (or her Mom) has had bad experiences with previous summonings, and they *were* invoking the "Mother of Darkness", after all (Thespia? All Thespians are evil? Or just night people?). I'm leaning more toward the "demon" angle, though, or some combination of the two angles (and I still say there's an Amy connection, though I reviewed "The Witch" and didn't see Tara's crystal anywhere in Amy's house). And yet, on the Posting Board, sources (though not Joss) have claimed "Tara is *not* evil". And pure-blooded demons seem to be virtually all evil. So here's my thought: Tara's Mom is/was a witch. Accidentally (or deliberately), Tara's Mom summoned Tara's Dad, a demon. Nine months (heck, maybe 2 days) later, half-demon not-evil Tara is born. Presumably, Tara did *not* have a happy childhood, either because her Mom hated her or because Dad stuck around. Or I could have it backward, and Tara's Mom is the demon (or even Thespia, Mother of Darkness (oh dear... or even Anya!)). Tara seemed sincere about her Mom being "a witch like Willow", though. Thoughts? -Allen W. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:27:41 -0700 From: "Susan J. Kroupa" Subject: Re: b/goodbyeiowa Donald G. Keller wrote: > And =what= is up with Tara sabotaging the spell??? Well, I have to suspect that she didn't want a spell to succeed that would cast a cloud over demons because perhaps she is one...or is in league with one? > (Why =is= the episode called "Goodby Iowa," anyway? They =aren't= going to > kill of Riley, too, are they??) I thought the "Goodby Iowa" was goodbye to both Riley's innocence--the world isn't as simple as he thought--and to his perception of his past--one that has been altered as he's been "created" by Maggie. Sue ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:52:33 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/goodbyeiowa Things are really kicking into gear now! Pieces falling into place. I wondered how an adversarial relationship with the Initiative would develop with Walsh (the only Initiative member who was anti-Buffy) dead, but it all fits neatly. I knew that their alliance with Spike would contribute to the development of the adversarial relationship. Forrest looks like he will have an increasingly important role. While many of my predictions and speculations do appear to be working out in a broad sense, some others have gone in unexpected ways. I expected the themes set up last season -- about control and relationship to parental / authority figures, and about fighting humans -- would have led at this point to a moral crisis for Buffy. Instead, the moral crisis is once again still being played out by Buffy's mirror, the season's Second Slayer. The parental relationship between Riley and Walsh was made explicit. I suspect that some genes of Riley's went into the makeup of his "brother." Right at this point, Feb sweeps, former allies -- Angel, then Faith, then Riley -- have turned on Buffy. A February tradition? Did anyone actually think the "vitamins" were innocent? I can understand not thinking about them at all, because BUFFY gives us so many significant details to process all at once, nobody can pick up on all of them. But no one actually =thought= about the "vitamins" and concluded that they were innocent, did they? I took the title "Goodbye, Iowa" (even before I saw the episode) to mean "Goodbye to Riley's Innocence." Note, BTW, how basically innocent the demon Adam is. And it is not exactly a brand of innocence I have seen done before. I predict that he will be become an interesting, original character in his own right. I believe that parallels will be emerging between Willow /Tara and Buffy /Riley and between Willow / Tara and Buffy / Faith. In fact, I will make a prediction here (note prediction, surer than speculation, even though this is a risky one) that Willow /Tara will play a big subrole in the Faith return 2-parter, and that a parallel between Willow / Tara and Buffy / Faith will be clear by the second part. This is hard to reconcile with my earlier speculation that Oz's return would cause Tara to turn against Willow, but I didn't know Faith was returning then. I think that Tara's sabotaging of the spell had something to do with the spell itself. It was to map out the location of demons. For some reason, she did not want to do that, and further, she wanted Willow to think that it was not possible for them to do. BTW, last week I found it interesting how Willow's magic crossed and thwarted the hi-tech stuff. Just a few quick thoughts while I have time. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:00:37 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/goodbyeiowa Our immediate speculation as to why Tara sabotaged the spell is that Willow is pushing her too far, too fast. Notice the preceding conversation in which Tara expresses doubt about the spell but Willow assures her it's easy, in that unconvincing way she has. It's possible there's more to it than that, but if Tara is what she says she is, just the daughter of a witch, and not half-demon, or horribly scarred by some childhood experience with witchcraft, that could be the reason. Notice also that, from the conversation at the beginning of the scene, that when Willow and Tara pulled their infamous all-nighter they really were apparently just casting spells all night. I agree that there's romantic tension between them, but that does not mean that people in that situation automatically fall into bed at the first opportunity. Kudos to the writers for showing restraint. I liked the sushi pajamas line. I was vaguely expecting something on those lines, at least a "[pause, looks down at self] but maybe I should put some clothes on first." Interesting stuff on Wesley's personal background in _Angel_ tonight, unfortunately most of it coming from an almost unintelligible demon. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #36 ****************************